aquapub

Stahl Discovers 'Polarizing' & 'Fascist' Scalia Really 'Charming' --4/28/2008-- Media Research Center

What is the legitimate criteria for determining whether a network should air an ad? What crosses the line into bias?

__________________
They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax ‘businesses!’ So unless you buy something from a ‘business,’ like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business,’ don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. -Fred Thompson

independent_thinker2002

Network discretion. Just like a bar, they can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

__________________
==]:{o

Hatuey

I think aquapub just wants all candidates to be given equal time to blast their opponents.

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

aquapub

ButI'm not arguing about their discretion, just their bias. Is there anything about the anti-Obama ad that necessitates pulling it (legal liability, cussing, etc.), or did two of our major networks just decide to protect Obama based on political calculation?

Those who control our news shouldn't be censoring speech for or against any candidate.

If a network suppresses one side's ad, they should have to be able to point to something other than their own political bias as the reason. Otherwise it's like Jim Carey in Liar, Liar:

"I object, your honor."

"Why?"

"Because it's devastating to my case."

...i.e., "We pulled the ad because it makes the candidate we're rooting for look like crap."

Curious George

It might have something to do with a bias toward Obama among the media executives, but, in this case, I would tend to think it goes more toward a public relations decision. Everywhere this ad has been mentioned it has been described as incredibly negative (among other things). If it weren't for all the bad press the ad has gotten already, I suspect they'd probably have allowed it to run.

They just don't want to deal with the fallout.

aquapub

The fallout wouldn't land on the networks for running an ad they were paid to run unless it had something obscene, illegal, etc. in it.

independent_thinker2002

Other advertisers could pull their ads. Viewers could stop watching hurting ratings which in turn hurts ad revenue.

aquapub

From the little girl with the flower getting nuked ad to the swift boat ads, the networks aren't targeted, even for the most outrageous smear ads...people realize the networks don't endorse something just because they run it.

independent_thinker2002

You really think that the networks would play an ad with McCain freaking out inside a box to Alice in Chains' "Man in the Box"? There is a line that can be crossed.

aquapub

Yet we've seen Democrats run ads showing Bush helping Bin Laden's family get out of the country after 9/11 (yes that was actually a campaign commercial from 2004), innocent little girls getting nuked by Republican policies, little black boys choking to death on water contaminated by evil Republican delays in increasing environmental budgets, etc.

Which media outlets were ostracized over those ads?

Exactly.